Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 815322" data-attributes="member: 1149">Read what you wrote?In your specific example, you defined the character's origina land, and it is a known quantity that your player will have a grasp of what is common knowledge and what isn't, and you defined the amount of travel to relevant region as NONE, and you also IMPLIED that rakshasas are native to or not found outside of that localized region.AFTER you made those definitions clear, you then reached the conclusion about what knowledge is available.Now, for your players, do that for every monster in the monster manual and every region on your campaign world before you start jumping and frothing over metagaming.It is NOT defined in DND that rakashasas only come from one region... they are actually defined as &quot;warm forest and marsh&quot; which covers frankly a wide expanse of a standard DND setting.If you limit rakshasas to those areas and limit knowledge of rakshasas to inhabitants in those asreas, then you are playing relatively fair with PC knowledges. However, of course they are also outsiders and you should probably consider mages with knowledge outsiders or planar knowledges to also be reasonable candidates for this knowledge.On the other hand, if&nbsp; you actually IN PLAY limit rakshasas in your world to a relatively small and distant region such as India, then by all means the only reasonable access to such info would be by experience within the land OR by those with magical reasons to know of their otherworldly existence.But to use rakshasas with the scope DND 3.0 gives them... as outsiders with marsh and warm forest climate preferences,&nbsp; as a creature callable by mid-level spells such as the planar series... then at the same moment invoking the &quot;british first trip to india&quot; and implied&nbsp; &quot;limited rakshas to india only&quot; to determine the availability of the knowledge is double-think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Petrosian, post: 815322, member: 1149"] Read what you wrote? In your specific example, you defined the character's origina land, and it is a known quantity that your player will have a grasp of what is common knowledge and what isn't, and you defined the amount of travel to relevant region as NONE, and you also IMPLIED that rakshasas are native to or not found outside of that localized region. AFTER you made those definitions clear, you then reached the conclusion about what knowledge is available. Now, for your players, do that for every monster in the monster manual and every region on your campaign world before you start jumping and frothing over metagaming. It is NOT defined in DND that rakashasas only come from one region... they are actually defined as "warm forest and marsh" which covers frankly a wide expanse of a standard DND setting. If you limit rakshasas to those areas and limit knowledge of rakshasas to inhabitants in those asreas, then you are playing relatively fair with PC knowledges. However, of course they are also outsiders and you should probably consider mages with knowledge outsiders or planar knowledges to also be reasonable candidates for this knowledge. On the other hand, if you actually IN PLAY limit rakshasas in your world to a relatively small and distant region such as India, then by all means the only reasonable access to such info would be by experience within the land OR by those with magical reasons to know of their otherworldly existence. But to use rakshasas with the scope DND 3.0 gives them... as outsiders with marsh and warm forest climate preferences, as a creature callable by mid-level spells such as the planar series... then at the same moment invoking the "british first trip to india" and implied "limited rakshas to india only" to determine the availability of the knowledge is double-think. [/QUOTE]

Verification